At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Would you consider it murder if the organism could not survive outside the womb, but, given a very short amount of time, it would have developed to be able to do so?

IMHO this is a silly question. It's similar to asking whether or not a corpse is considered alive just because given a very short amount of time in the past it was alive.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Would you consider it murder if the organism could not survive outside the womb, but, given a very short amount of time, it would have developed to be able to do so?

IMHO this is a silly question. It's similar to asking whether or not a corpse is considered alive just because given a very short amount of time in the past it was alive.

The two situations are quite different.

It's obvious when the person is alive and when he or she is dead in the situation you provided. It's also obvious that the fetus, in any stage of its development, is alive.

The analogy you provide is not sufficient, as we are not concerned with whether or not the baby is alive. Rather, we are concerned with a matter of morality and when a person should be considered human.

So then according to Wikipedia - this baby that was killed is not murder? Is the position you are taking up? Interesting you would prefer to argue semantics and not answer the simple question. IS THIS MURDER?

So then according to Wikipedia - this baby that was killed is not murder? Is the position you are taking up? Interesting you would prefer to argue semantics and not answer the simple question. IS THIS MURDER?

Viability used to be 26 weeks, but now premature babies are being born as early as 22.

but despite the advance in medical science to sustain a premature birth, the fetus is still nonhuman, because it is not a person, and it does not show any signs of feeling pain. Just because something has fingers, lungs, brain, nerves, stomach, beating heart, blinking eyes... none of that constitutes human life. No! if it doesn't have it's nerve cells for pain sheathed in myelin yet duh.

So then according to Wikipedia - this baby that was killed is not murder? Is the position you are taking up? Interesting you would prefer to argue semantics and not answer the simple question. IS THIS MURDER?

Viability used to be 26 weeks, but now premature babies are being born as early as 22.

but despite the advance in medical science to sustain a premature birth, the fetus is still nonhuman, because it is not a person, and it does not show any signs of feeling pain. Just because something has fingers, lungs, brain, nerves, stomach, beating heart, blinking eyes... none of that constitutes human life. No! if it doesn't have it's nerve cells for pain sheathed in myelin yet duh.

I'll admit... I love your posts, and look forward to them! Where else are you going to a myelin sheath reference!?

A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.

So then according to Wikipedia - this baby that was killed is not murder? Is the position you are taking up? Interesting you would prefer to argue semantics and not answer the simple question. IS THIS MURDER?

Viability used to be 26 weeks, but now premature babies are being born as early as 22.

but despite the advance in medical science to sustain a premature birth, the fetus is still nonhuman, because it is not a person, and it does not show any signs of feeling pain. Just because something has fingers, lungs, brain, nerves, stomach, beating heart, blinking eyes... none of that constitutes human life. No! if it doesn't have it's nerve cells for pain sheathed in myelin yet duh.

I'll admit... I love your posts, and look forward to them! Where else are you going to a myelin sheath reference!?

So then according to Wikipedia - this baby that was killed is not murder? Is the position you are taking up? Interesting you would prefer to argue semantics and not answer the simple question. IS THIS MURDER?

Viability used to be 26 weeks, but now premature babies are being born as early as 22.

but despite the advance in medical science to sustain a premature birth, the fetus is still nonhuman, because it is not a person, and it does not show any signs of feeling pain. Just because something has fingers, lungs, brain, nerves, stomach, beating heart, blinking eyes... none of that constitutes human life. No! if it doesn't have it's nerve cells for pain sheathed in myelin yet duh.

I'll admit... I love your posts, and look forward to them! Where else are you going to a myelin sheath reference!?

Thank you I'm glad we can disagree and still have fun.

Well you are thought provoking and well studied... I appreciate that regardless of your views. Always an interesting read.

A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.

So then according to Wikipedia - this baby that was killed is not murder? Is the position you are taking up? Interesting you would prefer to argue semantics and not answer the simple question. IS THIS MURDER?

All arguments are semantics. As it is, according to the wikipedia link, in some states it's murder, and in some states it's not. It's simply not clear, a sentiment which tkubok expressed as well. My own opinion is that aborting a 7 month fetus is ridiculously irresponsible without due cause, which at that point should only be endangerment of the mother, so I would be strictly against abortions in the third trimester.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Would you consider it murder if the organism could not survive outside the womb, but, given a very short amount of time, it would have developed to be able to do so?

IMHO this is a silly question. It's similar to asking whether or not a corpse is considered alive just because given a very short amount of time in the past it was alive.

The two situations are quite different.

It's obvious when the person is alive and when he or she is dead in the situation you provided. It's also obvious that the fetus, in any stage of its development, is alive.

Is it clear though? Sometimes, if you chop a person's head off, the body may still be capable of reflexive action, similar to how anti-abortion advocates point to how a fetus reacts to the intrusive instruments used in an abortion.

The analogy you provide is not sufficient, as we are not concerned with whether or not the baby is alive. Rather, we are concerned with a matter of morality and when a person should be considered human.

A human being is alive.A fetus is not a human being.A fetus is not alive.

A human being is alive.A corpse is not a human being.A corpse is not alive.

The issue of being alive is quite relevant to whether or not a fetus is a human.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

Is it clear though? Sometimes, if you chop a person's head off, the body may still be capable of reflexive action, similar to how anti-abortion advocates point to how a fetus reacts to the intrusive instruments used in an abortion.

When the person loses consciousness upon having their head cut off, that person dies regardless of their reflexive actions.

A human being is alive.A fetus is not a human being.A fetus is not alive.

You don't have to be a human being to be alive.

A human being is alive.A corpse is not a human being.A corpse is not alive.

The issue of being alive is quite relevant to whether or not a fetus is a human.

The fetus is alive, and the syllogism you provided doesn't make sense.

Is it clear though? Sometimes, if you chop a person's head off, the body may still be capable of reflexive action, similar to how anti-abortion advocates point to how a fetus reacts to the intrusive instruments used in an abortion.

When the person loses consciousness upon having their head cut off, that person dies regardless of their reflexive actions.

If you're going to use the litmus test of consciousness, you're going to have to prove that a fetus has consciousness.

A human being is alive.A fetus is not a human being.A fetus is not alive.

You don't have to be a human being to be alive.

A human being is alive.A corpse is not a human being.A corpse is not alive.

The issue of being alive is quite relevant to whether or not a fetus is a human.

The fetus is alive, and the syllogism you provided doesn't make sense.

Hmm...let's try this again.

A human being is afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law.A fetus/corpse is not a human being.A fetus/corpse is not afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

If you're going to use the litmus test of consciousness, you're going to have to prove that a fetus has consciousness.

I am not simply saying that losing consciousness means you die. I was only referring to that particular scenario.

Perhaps a more general "rule" is when the person is no longer able to perform any functions that he or she would normally be able to do. This would not, of course, include sleep, as you are still capable of breathing, your heart still pumps blood, your mind is still working, and so on.

Hmm...let's try this again.

A human being is afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law.A fetus/corpse is not a human being.A fetus/corpse is not afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law.

But are only human beings afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law? No. For example, animals have some rights, too.

Regardless, by killing the fetus, you are killing a human that would be (assuming, of course, that the birth would be successfully completed). This is fundamentally different from killing bacteria or an insect, as such things will never develop to be humans.

Is it clear though? Sometimes, if you chop a person's head off, the body may still be capable of reflexive action, similar to how anti-abortion advocates point to how a fetus reacts to the intrusive instruments used in an abortion.

When the person loses consciousness upon having their head cut off, that person dies regardless of their reflexive actions.

If you're going to use the litmus test of consciousness, you're going to have to prove that a fetus has consciousness.

A human being is alive.A fetus is not a human being.A fetus is not alive.

You don't have to be a human being to be alive.

A human being is alive.A corpse is not a human being.A corpse is not alive.

The issue of being alive is quite relevant to whether or not a fetus is a human.

The fetus is alive, and the syllogism you provided doesn't make sense.

Hmm...let's try this again.

A human being is afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law.A fetus/corpse is not a human being.A fetus/corpse is not afforded certain rights pertaining to life under law.

You might as well be grouping everything that isnt a human being, including skin cells, dogs, cats, etc. I dont know why you simply group a corpse and a fetus together, as if youre trying to make an appeal to emotions or something.